# Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?



## Doctavian (Nov 23, 2012)

Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?

Background:
The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.

Consequently a group of former Whigs, who believed in a literal interpretation of the American Constitution (that "All Men" really are created equal) formed a new party called The Republican Party, in Ripon, Wisconsin on June 6th 1854. Their ranks soon swelled with former Republicans, and Democrats of conscience.  And within six years "the rest" became history.

What concerns conservatives today is the encrochmont of economic slavery. (The emancipation of Russia's original economic slaves occured in 1861 (See: Emancipation reform 1861, Wickopedia) And of Russia's "modern economic slaves" in 1991.

Do you think that it is time for "The Tea Party" (or a party of a different name, representing conservative Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians) to replace the Republican party ?


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 22, 2012)

Since the dawn of civilization those who are progressive in nature have always won out. The Republican Party of 1840-1970 is not the Republican party of today, in fact it was virtually the opposite. The Whigs success was due to the fact that slavery was going to end eventually. I believe we were the second to last western nation to ban slavery, only to Brazil in 1888 (I think). The Tea Party is on the wrong side of history. In order to save the Party, we have to adapt to non crazy ideas. We maintain or fiscal stances because they are a neccessity, but lets drop these crazy social thoughts because they are the reasons we lose so many youth votes. Trust me I know, I am in college and every person I speak to who says, I like the Repubs. ideas on the economy but I cant morally vote for someone who wants to ban gay marraige or any other host of out dated social ideals. If we want a conservative revival we need to stop putting people in congress from Kansas 3rd district or wherever who placee social issues over our impending fiscal doom. just my opinion though


----------



## 50_RiaL (Dec 26, 2012)

Don't see it happening.


----------



## YoungRepublican (Dec 26, 2012)

50_RiaL said:


> Don't see it happening.



We can only pray that reason prevails.


----------



## Tuatara (Dec 26, 2012)

YoungRepublican said:


> 50_RiaL said:
> 
> 
> > Don't see it happening.
> ...


The words Reason and Tea Party do not belong beside each other in any form.


----------



## NoVote (Jan 2, 2013)

From the first indication that there was a new group of people who called themselves Tea Party, I have felt that they were repubs, independents and dems who wanted better government representation. I got the idea that they didn't care who the person running for office was, as long as he was honest, fair, could work with either party and had Americas best interest in his heart and mind. The last thing we need is yet another party. The concept of Tea Party, the very name itself, means a protest of the status quo.

It didn't take long for those who want to push others around, influence their thinking and know what's best for you to try and take charge. That immediately lost them a lot of members, as it well should have. Tea Partiers are protesters, not joiners. The vote in America is a private thing, and so should being a Tea Party member. They, [We], need no leader to tell us who to vote for and are perfectly able to make our own choices. Which after all, is why we became Tea Partiers in the first place.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 2, 2013)

then why do they ONLY vote for republicans?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2013)

YoungRepublican said:


> Since the dawn of civilization those who are progressive in nature have always won out. The Republican Party of 1840-1970 is not the Republican party of today, in fact it was virtually the opposite. The Whigs success was due to the fact that slavery was going to end eventually. I believe we were the second to last western nation to ban slavery, only to Brazil in 1888 (I think). The Tea Party is on the wrong side of history. In order to save the Party, we have to adapt to non crazy ideas. We maintain or fiscal stances because they are a neccessity, but lets drop these crazy social thoughts because they are the reasons we lose so many youth votes. Trust me I know, I am in college and every person I speak to who says, I like the Repubs. ideas on the economy but I cant morally vote for someone who wants to ban gay marraige or any other host of out dated social ideals. If we want a conservative revival we need to stop putting people in congress from Kansas 3rd district or wherever who placee social issues over our impending fiscal doom. just my opinion though



I'm glad to see Jake Starkey got his kid to post here.

Bankrupting our country is a moral issue.

The "Tea Party" meaning Conservatives and Libertarians will now begin to take over the Republican Party


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 2, 2013)

they already have and that is why your getting your ass kicked


----------



## PredFan (Jan 2, 2013)

I agree, but I mean the original Tea Party from back in 2007 to 2009. Not the one that we have now. Not the one that was totally taken over by the GOP.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 2, 2013)

GOP, splintered and distraught.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 2, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> GOP, splintered and distraught.



A fair assessment.

I'll give you another one:

DNC a flock of sheep moving as one.


----------



## midcan5 (Jan 2, 2013)

It is clear today the tea party is a third party in American politics. While certain ideological positions coincide with republican positions the tea party does not operate within the republican party. Look only at Speaker Boehner and you quickly realize the problem with third parities - they have too much power given the minority base they represent. The Speaker can do little for he fears them, they control him and with him the entire House. Imagine then a small minority of tea party senators and while it seems impossible, even less will get done in our legislative body. Those who argue for third parties must now recognize how problematic they are, and how a small group of extremists can come to control the American political system. Should the tea party transform into the republican party, the democrats will continue to win national elections. Extremist views don't play well nationally.


----------



## Intense (Jan 2, 2013)

Truthmatters said:


> then why do they ONLY vote for republicans?



When is the last time you crossed party lines? What does that make you, according to your reasoning. 

I'm Tea Party, I've Voted across party lines.


----------



## Intense (Jan 2, 2013)

midcan5 said:


> It is clear today the tea party is a third party in American politics. While certain ideological positions coincide with republican positions the tea party does not operate within the republican party. Look only at Speaker Boehner and you quickly realize the problem with third parities - they have too much power given the minority base they represent. The Speaker can do little for he fears them, they control him and with him the entire House. Imagine then a small minority of tea party senators and while it seems impossible, even less will get done in our legislative body. Those who argue for third parties must now recognize how problematic they are, and how a small group of extremists can come to control the American political system. Should the tea party transform into the republican party, the democrats will continue to win national elections. Extremist views don't play well nationally.



I see it more as a Movement. Back to Basics. Back to a Purpose driven life, rooted in Personal Responsibility V.S. Group Think. Classic Liberalism V.S. Statist Progressivism. Moral Absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Sort of like, not having to know who is involved in an altercation before deciding right and wrong, as opposed to having to know who is involved in an altercation, before determining what is supposedly Just, for fear of who you might piss off or offend, by your Judgement. You know, Impartial Justice V.S. Blind Justice. Just a thought.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2013)

Intense said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > then why do they ONLY vote for republicans?
> ...



I voted for Ed Koch, once. That was the one and only time I voted for a Democrat, but that was before they were Neo-Marxists


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 2, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...



Yes, it is time and Marco Rubio would make a fine leader. 

But as far as this country, showing any kind of reversal to the days of fiscal responsibility and accountability, it is something I seriously doubt. 

We should have let America go over the FC so "maybe" Obammy's supporters could see how much he really is willing to  hurt them and doesn't care one bit. He is into the power grab and now probably arriving in HI to finish his vaca with the family at the additional expense to the taxpayers of 7 ( seven ) million dollars.

I predict Tea Party faves, taking more seats in both Houses, in two years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 2, 2013)

The "Tea Party" needs to take control of the Republican Party and make it a Reform Government Party.

Republican Moderates have walked us to the brink of the cliff, we need to aikido them so they follow their Ideological Democrat brothers over the egde.

Reform Entitlements, reform taxes, reform all of DC

It's either that or we follow the instruction that came with our Founding documented and hit Ctl Alt Del twice and reboot the whole system


----------



## NoVote (Jan 2, 2013)

> I'm glad to see Jake Starkey got his kid to post here.



Who's Jake Starkey? Who cares? I'm nobody's kid.

I think Tea *Party* is completely off the mark. It's not a party, it's a way of thinking, and when it gets rolling, it will shame any party that thinks they have what it takes now. If it ever gets away from the people who founded the concept, then it deserves to fail, but the individuals who make it up now will still be out here, voting for whoever shows promise. Instead of pissing an moaning about what it's doing wrong, how about some opinion about what to do right?


----------



## mfabozzi (Jan 3, 2013)

It's time for the Tea Party to come out and voice the dissatisfaction with this President, explain to him  how a compromise works instead of these games he plays with his Media friends and Liberal nuts destroying this country...


----------



## Katzndogz (Jan 3, 2013)

It's time for the tea party to give up compromise and negotiation and go for subversion.


----------



## NoVote (Jan 4, 2013)

The concept behind what is called the Tea Party needs to worm it's way into the democrap party. Everything they touch is ruined eventually. Cities, counties, states, even the nation goes downhill when they get into power. Socialism just won't work here.


----------



## Votto (Jan 10, 2013)

YoungRepublican said:


> Since the dawn of civilization those who are progressive in nature have always won out. The Republican Party of 1840-1970 is not the Republican party of today, in fact it was virtually the opposite. The Whigs success was due to the fact that slavery was going to end eventually. I believe we were the second to last western nation to ban slavery, only to Brazil in 1888 (I think). The Tea Party is on the wrong side of history. In order to save the Party, we have to adapt to non crazy ideas. We maintain or fiscal stances because they are a neccessity, but lets drop these crazy social thoughts because they are the reasons we lose so many youth votes. Trust me I know, I am in college and every person I speak to who says, I like the Repubs. ideas on the economy but I cant morally vote for someone who wants to ban gay marraige or any other host of out dated social ideals. If we want a conservative revival we need to stop putting people in congress from Kansas 3rd district or wherever who placee social issues over our impending fiscal doom. just my opinion though



The gay marriage issue is easy to remedy.  Just take the position that government has absolutely no business in marriage by smiling on only certian sexual activity but not others.

As for abortion, it is the abortionists who are on the wrong side of history.  Like slavery, people smile and say it's OK but still think it is still suboptimal on some level.  They just put up with it due to financial reasons.

As for fiscal sanity, no one in the GOP seems to be offering anything substanitive to reduce the deficit or has in the past.

In the end, the GOP is a house divided on social issues and bankrupt in regards to fiscal issues.  They are an absolute disgrace.


----------



## Votto (Jan 10, 2013)

NoVote said:


> The concept behind what is called the Tea Party needs to worm it's way into the democrap party. Everything they touch is ruined eventually. Cities, counties, states, even the nation goes downhill when they get into power. Socialism just won't work here.



When did the Tea Party get into power and ruin everything?  If memory serves, the GOP caves into the democrat mantra every fregg'in time.


----------



## NoVote (Jan 12, 2013)

Read it again. I did not say the Tea Party is in power, in fact, I said earlier, I hope they never get in power, it will ruin them.

It's the democraps who ruin everything they touch. And now that you mention it, it's the repugs who let them get away with it.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 12, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...



Nowadays, the Tea Party IS the Republican Party. Initially, the Tea Party was formed in opposotion to runaway government spending (first under Bush). The when hussein was elected, the GOP took it over and now there isn't any real difference.


----------



## NoVote (Jan 12, 2013)

The GOP only "thinks" they have taken it over. When it comes voting time, if a repug has been remiss, they will eat him for lunch. And not for the first time. The Tea Party, if anything, resemble the independents. They are independent.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 17, 2013)

> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?



but, everything that's wrong with the GObP/pubs is personified by the teepotters. 

Its the potters that need to go. And, asap.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 17, 2013)

NoVote said:


> The GOP only "thinks" they have taken it over. When it comes voting time, if a repug has been remiss, they will eat him for lunch. And not for the first time. The Tea Party, if anything, resemble the independents. They are independent.




They MIGHT have started out that way but they're owned and controlled by the kochs now.

If we could get money out of the political "system", it would mean the end to the crazy potters. 

Doesn't matter though. According to a poll I read today or yesterday, only 8% of the population are friendly to the whole screwed up idea of the Tea Party and even fewer to the reality that is the teaparty.


----------



## NoVote (Jan 18, 2013)

> They MIGHT have started out that way but they're owned and controlled by the kochs now.



I know it's a difficult concept to understand, but the Kochs' only *think* they control them. They have stolen the name, they think they have stolen the people behind the name, and there is the lie. The real force behind the people that vote the Tea Party concept do not need leaders, speech makers, lies or brass bands. They just quietly go about the business of voting for who they think is honest. Try to think of them as 'thinkers' instead of your usual brain dead party hack.

Anyone can claim to be anything they want, but when the curtain close on the booth, they can vote for anyone they want with no one being the wiser. Powerful stuff, there.


----------



## UseCaution (Jan 18, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...



Please Proceed as,
" The Tea Party"

Or my favorite.​
*"The Torn Scrotum Party"*​
As for the mix of Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians.
*"The Adult Party"*​


----------



## Friends (Jan 28, 2013)

I would welcome the creation of the Tea Party as a third party because it would split the right wing vote, and benefit the Democrats.


----------



## zonly1 (Jan 30, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...



conservatives are economic power slaves or cause slavery?  really douche bag? 
show empirical data, otherwise shut the hell up.


----------



## Politico (Jan 30, 2013)

How could they? They don't even have a single person in office with a T next to their name.


----------



## Morganist (Feb 2, 2013)

It is more like the original Republican party.


----------



## RightNorLeft (Feb 2, 2013)

Politico said:


> How could they? They don't even have a single person in office with a T next to their name.



  Theres no one with an L next to their name for Liberal either if you want to put it in those terms.
   The teaparty is a synonym for the far right.


----------



## Friends (Feb 10, 2013)

The Republican Party is in a comparable situation to where the Democrats were during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Dissatisfied radicals dreamed of a third party on the left. They overestimated the appeal of their opinions. The presidential election of 1972 brought them back to reality. Although liberals moved to the left because of the War in Vietnam the black ghetto riots that happened from 1964 to 1968 moved most white blue collar workers to the right. These white blue collar workers noticed when the black ghetto riots ended abruptly with the election of Richard Nixon. 

Currently the standard of living for most Americans is declining, while the rich are getting richer. This is a Democratic issue if the Democrats can learn how to exploit it.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 24, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> *Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?*


Ya' really think anyone would notice?​


> *April 24, 2013*
> 
> *A Gathering Of Lemmings**!*​
> *"To say we havent been real active is an understatement. We havent done anything,* Texas Republican Rep. Joe L. Barton, a member of the group, recently told CQ Roll Call."



*DUH!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Apr 24, 2013)

YoungRepublican said:


> Since the dawn of civilization those who are progressive in nature have always won out.* The Republican Party of 1840-1970 is not the Republican party of today,* *in fact it was virtually the opposite. *The Whigs success was due to the fact that slavery was going to end eventually. I believe we were the second to last western nation to ban slavery, only to Brazil in 1888 (I think). The Tea Party is on the wrong side of history. In order to save the Party, we have to adapt to non crazy ideas. We *maintain our fiscal stances* because they are a neccessity, but lets* drop these crazy social thoughts* because they are the reasons we lose so many youth votes. Trust me I know, I am in college and every person I speak to who says, I like the Repubs. ideas on the economy but I cant morally vote for someone who wants to ban gay marraige or any other host of out dated social ideals. If we want a conservative revival we need to stop putting people in congress from Kansas 3rd district or wherever who placee social issues over our impending fiscal doom. just my opinion though



IKE wouldn't recognize the halfwit neocon white trash that destroyed the Republican Party. Die-hards in both parties make me wonder if some form of that movie "invasion of the body snatchers"  hasn't come to pass. 

Some years ago Clintonistas defended the man who signed NAFTA, gave Blackwater its first no-bid contract and in the course of a perjury scandal came to support repeal of Glass Steagall and rescinding good-sense regulations on commodities speculation. 

In these forums today is a thread claiming Bush wasn't the worst president in history, and there are people lost enough to support that without ever asking to see or posting charted comparisons with former presidents. Instead, like monkeys in a zoo they throw shit on the new guy, Obama - who, if my memory serves me well, has three years or so to go. 

One hopes real fiscal conservative and liberal young people come to understand it'd be better to die in the streets than continue to give ground to corporate rule and either takes back the parties postmodern partisans degraded or come together in a new party devoid of social bogusness and focused on good jobs, tight budgets, and long prison sentences for white collar crime. 

The group that gets there first is going to rule for a long time because the rest will take care of itself. 

Good luck.


----------



## Politico (Apr 25, 2013)

When the Tea party is an actual party ask again.


----------



## editec (Apr 25, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...




Gonna be hard to do unless those big GOP financial supporters join in the revolution.

Right now the TP is a lapdog of the GOP.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Apr 27, 2013)

[ame=http://youtu.be/cdDywJkUc-A]2nd Amendment Meme Slideshow - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## YoungRepublican (May 22, 2013)

Morganist said:


> It is more like the original Republican party.



I couldnt express my laughter at this comment. I can only hope that you read this and understand my disdain for that statement. The "Original Republican Party"? I highly recommend reading anything ever written on the Republican Party.. Come on people


----------



## YoungRepublican (May 22, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> YoungRepublican said:
> 
> 
> > Since the dawn of civilization those who are progressive in nature have always won out.* The Republican Party of 1840-1970 is not the Republican party of today,* *in fact it was virtually the opposite. *The Whigs success was due to the fact that slavery was going to end eventually. I believe we were the second to last western nation to ban slavery, only to Brazil in 1888 (I think). The Tea Party is on the wrong side of history. In order to save the Party, we have to adapt to non crazy ideas. We *maintain our fiscal stances* because they are a neccessity, but lets* drop these crazy social thoughts* because they are the reasons we lose so many youth votes. Trust me I know, I am in college and every person I speak to who says, I like the Repubs. ideas on the economy but I cant morally vote for someone who wants to ban gay marraige or any other host of out dated social ideals. If we want a conservative revival we need to stop putting people in congress from Kansas 3rd district or wherever who placee social issues over our impending fiscal doom. just my opinion though
> ...



We cant do it alone and I refuse to sit passenger in a car heading off of a cliff while everyone argues which seat they get. I try not to curse, but Fuck em all. If you are a Republican who denies evolution or Homosexual equality, just get out of the way. If youre a democrat who wants to keep feeding Detroit and Atlanta full of subsidies and a failed policy, just get out of the way. We cant afford stupid anymore.


----------



## Friends (Jun 10, 2013)

The message of the teabaggers is: cut my taxes; don't cut programs that benefit me; balance the budget. That is not a serious political platform. It is equivalent to a child telling Santa Clause that he wants all of the toys in the toy store. 

My hope is that the teabaggers split the GOP apart.


----------



## Friends (Jun 10, 2013)

YoungRepublican said:


> If you are a Republican who denies evolution or Homosexual equality, just get out of the way.


 
The religious right has lost ground to the teabaggers, but it made possible the election of Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Sawbriars (Aug 6, 2013)

If the Republican Party wants to have any chance of winning the Presidency, keeping the House and taking back the Senate, activists in the Tea Party need to rise up and get elected to leadership positions and these lifelong Republican leaders need to get out of the way. Not only does this reflect my thinking lately, but others are contemplating this as well. From the National Journal:


For Republicans who believe the tea party is responsible for the GOP&#8217;s struggles, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley&#8217;s decision to choose Rep. Tim Scott to replace Jim DeMint in the Senate would have come as a stunner. The nation&#8217;s second Indian-American governor appointed the only African-American who will be serving in the Senate come 2013. And not only are they both Republicans, they are tea party-aligned conservatives who took on the party establishment and won.

It&#8217;s ironic that at a time when party strategists are publicly panicking over the party&#8217;s need to diversify or face extinction, they&#8217;re blind to the reality that if it wasn&#8217;t for the much-maligned tea party, the Republican Party would be even more homogeneous than it is today.

Haley, a little-known state senator before being elected governor, would never have had a chance at becoming governor against the state&#8217;s good ol&#8217; boy network of statewide officeholders. Scott would have been a long shot in his Republican primary against none other than Strom Thurmond&#8217;s youngest son. Marco Rubio, now the hyped 2016 presidential favorite, would have stepped aside to see now-Democrat Charlie Crist become the next senator, depriving the party of one of its most talented stars. Ted Cruz, the other Hispanic Republican in the Senate, would have never chanced a seemingly futile bid against Texas&#8217;s 67-year-old lieutenant governor, seen as a lock to succeed Kay Bailey Hutchison.

But all those upset victories&#8211;all of which at the time seemed shocking&#8211;took place because of the conservative grassroots&#8217; strong sentiment for outsiders who campaigned on their principles, and not over their past political or family connections. Even a decade ago, party officials would have been more successful in pushing these outsider candidates aside, persuading them to wait their turn. (In Rubio&#8217;s case, it almost worked.) Now, in an era where grassroots politicking is as easy as ever thanks to the proliferation of social media, more control is in the hands of voters. And contrary to the ugly stereotypes of conservative activists being right-wing to the point of racist, it&#8217;s been the tea party movement that&#8217;s been behind the political success of most prominent minority Republican officeholders&#8230;

Not only does this bring real diversity to the Republican Party, it also brings a resurgence to Conservative principles. The 2014 midterm election will be a key indicator as to whether or not the Republican Party learned anything after getting behind Mitt Romney.


----------



## Sawbriars (Aug 9, 2013)

At a recent town hall meeting in Maryland hosted by Fox News anchor Greta van Susteren, Tea Party GOP voters ripped Congressman Andy Harris and the GOP for not standing up against government abuses. 

One voter admonished Harris, &#8220;We&#8217;re dying out here because you guys are being pc nice guys!&#8221; Another told Harris that Congress should &#8220;come clean&#8221; regarding NSA surveillance. A third insisted, &#8220;Innocent people&#8230; are getting slammed by partisan politics.&#8221; Ed Hunter, one of the GOP attendees, said John Boehner should start &#8220;defying&#8221; Barack Obama and threaten impeachment if Obama did not &#8220;start obeying the laws!&#8221; 

He added, &#8220;Listen, we&#8217;re dying out here because you guys are being nice guys! . . . We&#8217;re losing the country! I want to see more defiance!


----------



## PredFan (Aug 9, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...



No. It's time for all conservatives to join the party that has been truely conservative all along:

The Libertarian Party.


----------



## PredFan (Aug 9, 2013)

YoungRepublican said:


> Since the dawn of civilization those who are progressive in nature have always won out. The Republican Party of 1840-1970 is not the Republican party of today, in fact it was virtually the opposite. The Whigs success was due to the fact that slavery was going to end eventually. I believe we were the second to last western nation to ban slavery, only to Brazil in 1888 (I think). The Tea Party is on the wrong side of history. In order to save the Party, we have to adapt to non crazy ideas. We maintain or fiscal stances because they are a neccessity, but lets drop these crazy social thoughts because they are the reasons we lose so many youth votes. Trust me I know, I am in college and every person I speak to who says, I like the Repubs. ideas on the economy but I cant morally vote for someone who wants to ban gay marraige or any other host of out dated social ideals. If we want a conservative revival we need to stop putting people in congress from Kansas 3rd district or wherever who placee social issues over our impending fiscal doom. just my opinion though




That's the Libertarian Party.


----------



## Sawbriars (Aug 9, 2013)

The "Tea 'Party'" is a movement, not a party. And it will not have the necessary power needed to throw the liberals out unless it comprises both libertarians and the more traditional conservatives. We need each other. And at the core of each philosophy is personal FREEDOM within a united nation.


Irregardless, of whether the 'Tea Party' roots are libertarian or not, we need to merge this into a unified 'One'. 

If the Marxist DemocRATS can unite over their vices, why can't we unite around our virtues?


----------



## Friends (Aug 9, 2013)

Doctavian said:


> Time For The Tea Party To Replace The Republican party ?
> 
> Background:
> The religious revival, that swept the northern United States from 1840 to 1855 (See: "The burnt-over district, Wickopedia) made it imposable for the members of America's politically conservative party (Called the Whig Party)  to tolerate the expansion/ and or acceptance of slavery. (Whig members included:  Abraham Lincoln, Danial Webster, Henry Clay, Zachary Taylor etc) But the leadership of the Whig party refused to advance the anti-slavery agenda of the vast majority of it's members. The party's leadership preferred to compromise with the Democrats party's pro-slavery stance.
> ...


 
I think it is time for the teabaggers to start a third party on the right. That will guarantee the dominance of the Democratic Party. The teabaggers are losing support. They can't replace anything, but they can harm the GOP, and I hope they do.


----------

