Tea Party Movement

[Psychoclown]

Then they are meaningless.

But, if you have an leader, an organizer who is a nutter, and you see the billboards, and still come to the rallies he organizes, how can you not have the nutter on you?

Again, just because I attend an event organized by an individual, it doesn't mean I endorse every belief that individual holds. It means I agree with the general message or agenda of the event I attend. The billboard you linked is extreme and in my opinion a bit stupid, but its not reprehensible (or has anything to do with "hate" as the idiot quoted in the article said). So yeah, I'd be willing to overlook the organizer's personal extremism if the event was focused on a more generalized or moderated message.

 

[German guy]

Here's one of my issues with all those complaining that these things didn’t start until after Bush was out of office (nevermind that’s not true, but we’ll just assume they mean as fiercely as they are now).

Hello Zyphlin. Thank you very much for taking the time to compose a longer posting with a good argument. I'll try to answer it.

First, I want to state that I don't think the Tea Party's concerns are not any less legitimate, just because it didn't exist (or at least not as fiercely) before Obama was in office. Either the Tea Party's concerns are reasonable, or they are not, and that's a matter of inherent merit to their claims, not a question of when they started advancing them.

But it does give reason to question the claim they are allegedly "non-partisan", "against Washington establishment" or "against both parties alike". Sometimes, they claim they want to defend the Constitution and their criticism has nothing to do with the fact Obama is a Democrat. That claim is sometimes advanced, but as I explained, I have my doubts about it. Probably the majority of them is indeed partisan in favor of the Republican party. That's legitimate. You can be partisan and your arguments can still be valid. For example, if Obama is indeed violating the Constitution, criticism against it would be valid, even if it's advanced by partisan people who don't care when a Republican does the same.

It's just dishonest to claim this has nothing to do with partisanship, if that's the case. And it's dishonest to pretend the concern is rather about the Constitution beyond partisan bickering, when the problem actually is about a Democrat in office.

Where are all your complaints, bitching, and moaning in regards to the anti-war movement?

We are still in Iraq. We have ratcheted up in Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open. The War on Terror is continuing to be in progress.

First, let me say that there are certainly people who were unhappy with Bush because of these issues, and who are now still giving Obama more support and credit than he would deserve when soberly looking at his record in office so far. These people certainly can be accused of partisanship.

But I think the points you mention are a bit more complicated than you suggest they are. First: True, you're still in Iraq. But most people, even among those who protested against the war in 2003, understand that once you're in, you cannot just leave from one day to the next (now maybe the die-hard anti-war people do demand that, but hardly a majority of those who opposed the war). That's why they are generally satisfied with Obama announcing a timetable for getting out.

Clearly, there is a difference between Bush and Obama, when it comes to Iraq: Bush started the war under very controversial circumstances in the first place, and is responsible for the occupation that drew a lot of criticism. Obama, on the other hand, has never started such a war, and all he can be accused of is not getting out quickly enough. Thus I don't think it's incoherent to oppose Bush, but not Obama.

Also, I don't think it's incoherent to criticize Bush for Iraq, but not criticizing Obama for continued engagement in Afghanistan. Now maybe the die-hard anti-war people equally oppose both wars, and in that case, it would be incoherent if they gave Obama a free pass. But as you may remember, the Afghanistan invasion was by far not as controversial as Iraq, and while protests against the former drew a few dozens of thousands protesters, the latter brought dozens of millions on the streets.

Apparently, many people who protested against the Iraq war were not opposed to the Afghanistan war. So it's not incoherent they'd be satisfied with Obama, who gave a timetable to leave Iraq, but decided to stay in Afghanistan.

As for Gitmo, again I think it's a difference when someone (Bush) starts this kind of practize in the first place, compared to the case when another President (Obama) just doesn't end it quickly enough. It seems obvious to me that the former is worse than the latter. But I agree -- assuming Obama will not close Gitmo before the end of his term, it would be hypocritical to criticize Bush for starting it, while failing to mention Obama didn't close it.

And yet where are the huge protests? Where is the major media stories? Where are the documentaries? Where are the concerts? The outcry has been like a house cat compared to a lion in reference to how loud it is under Obama comparative to how it was under Bush. The only real excuse would be that Obama is at least doing it “better” than Bush and that they have more faith in Obama in ending it.

First, the things I said above, and: Don't forget the anti-war movement was strongest in 2003, directly before, during and in the direct aftermath of the invasion. Once the invasion had taken place, most people apparently realized there is not much left they can still do, and the openly visible protests considerably lost momentum. I don't even remember large protests in the last few years of Bush's presidency.

How is that any different than the Tea Parties?

I hope my explanation above was successful at pointing to similarities and differences.

Obama inflated the deficit higher in a single year greater than the two biggest of Bush’s term. Obama’s first year and projected second year outdoes Bush’s entire presidency. In general many Tea Partiers are conservative in nature, or are so at the very least on the fiscal side of things, which stands to reason that like their liberal counter parts with regards to the war they have more faith in the opposition doing a “better” job about it than Obama is.

Agreed, their criticism and partisanship is legitimate. It would just be an untrue myth if they claimed to be anything but a partisan pro-Republican movement.

So why this condemnation that the fiscal and governmental responsibility movement is louder while Obama is in office and yet the vast majority of you bitching in this thread never make a peep concerning the hypocrisy of many of those that bring this up, both in the media and in general, who were either actively part of the rabid anti-war mob or frequently gave those types support and yet say nothing now.

Hypocrisy certainly is not limited to one side of the political spectrum, or to one movement.

But also, two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone doesn't mention the (alleged or actual) hypocrisy of the Tea Party movement, doesn't mean his criticism of the anti-war movment's is invalid, or vice versa. Topic of this thread is not the anti-war movement, after all, but the Tea Party.

It is the nature of humans, and especially in politics, to deal with issues you’re unhappy with in regards to your own “Team” in a more subdued and direct way. If you’re on a sports team and one of your players is acting like a complete asshole and in turns is costing the team penalties your coach and players are more likely to deal with it behind the scenes rather than speak bad publicly about it, and fans are far more likely to try and rationalize it away when talking to other fans while bitching about it amongst their own. However, those same people if it was for the other team would likely be more vocal about it. Hell, look at how fans of whatever city TO felt about him compared to what the rest of the country did. Why? Because when you are unhappy with “your guys” it still is generally preferable to the “other guys”, and as such you try to fix things quietly so as not to give the “other guys” even better opportunity.

Agreed, it's normal. And to at least some degree, most of us are probably guilty of it.

But still, there is a significant diffence when it comes to the degree of partisan thinking: Some don't get their general sympathy for one "team" in the way of critically examining certain "players" on their own side, or critical evaluation of arguments by the other. Or, in other words, despite partisan sympathies, they are not partisan hacks, but are open for good arguments from the other side, and don't defend their own side even when there is no point in defending it.

Some others, on the other side, do exactly that. They blindly follow their "team", regardless of facts, arguments or legitimate criticism. They will always smear the other "team", no matter how inconsistent or hypocritical that is.

I'd say the former is normal and ok, the latter is problematical and is harmful for a rational political discourse and for the democratic process.

To condemn the Tea Party, or conservatives, for this is to essentially be blind to centuries old political habits and repeated situations throughout the past decades of Democrats and Republicans and their respective sub movements doing the same thing. Just off the top of my head in recent years look at the amount democrats clamored about “Corruption” prior to 2006 and how little was said about it now. Look at how people were livid in regards to lobbyists and the use of loopholes in regards to McCain’s campaign and Bush followed by the silence when Obama appointed Lobbyists to his staff through a loophole. Look at the relative silence by the anti-war movement. Look at the relative silence of the immigration lobby compared to the massively televised and followed protests of some years ago. And it goes on and on. What you’re condemning is something every singular side is guilty of, and frankly each and every one of you are guilty of as you sit here complaining about the Tea Party doing it but bring it up next to never for anyone else, thus showing your ability to be “louder” about issues only when you think its most beneficial to you.

Yeah, blind partisanship is not limited to one side of the spectrum. But there are different degrees.

And as I said, my main point is not that the Tea Party's demands are necessarily illegitimate (that would be another debate), just that I don't think they are non-partisan or genuinely interested in non-partisan defense of the Constitution. They are partisan conservative people with certain concerns about the policies of a Democratic President.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I porved they listed him on the national site as an organizer for that area. What more could there be?

No, no you didnt. When asked to show the heirarchy Nd an address to the "national site" you linked nevada or some such nonsense.

Its not a "party" like you are dishonestly tryi g to make it out to be. Even after being proven wrong over and over again

 

[Zyphlin]

Thanks for the excellent response German Guy.

First, I want to state that I don't think the Tea Party's concerns are not any less legitimate, just because it didn't exist (or at least not as fiercely) before Obama was in office. Either the Tea Party's concerns are reasonable, or they are not, and that's a matter of inherent merit to their claims, not a question of when they started advancing them.

I can agree with you here. While I do understand accusations, and agree, of mild hypocrisy on the part of the Tea Party I don't think it makes their claims necessarily any less legitimate.

But it does give reason to question the claim they are allegedly "non-partisan", "against Washington establishment" or "against both parties alike". Sometimes, they claim they want to defend the Constitution and their criticism has nothing to do with the fact Obama is a Democrat. That claim is sometimes advanced, but as I explained, I have my doubts about it. Probably the majority of them is indeed partisan in favor of the Republican party. That's legitimate. You can be partisan and your arguments can still be valid. For example, if Obama is indeed violating the Constitution, criticism against it would be valid, even if it's advanced by partisan people who don't care when a Republican does the same.[/qoute]

This is an odd one. The Tea Party is unquestionably fiscally and governmentally conservative in its nature. The only over arching object of agreement by most is the Contract From America and its decisively conservative in nature. That said, at the same time the Tea Party is made up of 40% non-Republicans so the notion that its necessarily a "Republican" movement is a bit off. They've backed a number of candidates in a large variety of states in primaries already who've represented a different focus than their republican counter part...typically a strong fiscal and governmental conservative foundation.

So I do think they're "non-partisan" in regards to political parties while partisan when it comes to ideology. I do think they're upset in general with "both parties" though its clear they're MORE upset with a singular one. The amount some seem to present the Tea Party as a complete unique entity is a bit over the top, but at the same time I've seen numerous people within the movement that clearly and openly speak to its conservative foundations.

First, let me say that there are certainly people who were unhappy with Bush because of these issues, and who are now still giving Obama more support and credit than he would deserve when soberly looking at his record in office so far. These people certainly can be accused of partisanship.First, the things I said above, and: Don't forget the anti-war movement was strongest in 2003, directly before, during and in the direct aftermath of the invasion. Once the invasion had taken place, most people apparently realized there is not much left they can still do, and the openly visible protests considerably lost momentum. I don't even remember large protests in the last few years of Bush's presidency.

From there to the end of your speech on the War on Terror and its surrounding wars is all well and good, but still speaks to my point. Its obvious through your passioante speech regarding that that in general you are in line with much of that thinking, which is fine. But what you're essentially going, when you boil it down to it, is "Its different!" now in your mind and thus its okay to react differently.

This is the same thing with the Tea Partiers. "Its different!" to them now then it was under Bush. Deficits are higher. Government is encroaching into people and enterprises private affairs for illigitimate reasons in their opinion. Spending is ramped up. Government is expanding in fashions they deem less legitimate. And as such because things got worse people got louder. Note I say louder. This notion that somehow there were no conservative voices speaking against Bush is in and of itself ridiculous revisionist history. There were Republican/Conservative complaints about No Child Left Behind, Perscription Drug, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, spending by the Republican controlled Congress, the creation of TSA/DHS, TARP 1, etc. The act that this didn't happen is just that, an act. Was it as loud as it is now or as wide spread? No, for the reasons I said in my last post. But the presentation in this thread and others is that it suddenly went from 0 to 60 the moment Obama came into office and that's simply not the case. One does not get into the 20% range of approval rating without having a significant portion of your voter base expressing disapproval as well.

To give you an analogy of how both are working I can use a pot of water.

In the anti-war movement case, or really just about anything a large amount of liberals/democrats complained about while under Bush but are quieter under Obama, it would go like this. During Bush the water in the pot was turned up on high and was bubbling madly in a furious boil that sent water spilling out the sides. When Obama took office the burner was turned down to low, bringing the pot to a simmer. Was the water completely calm and still? No, but its a mild bubbling compared to the raging boil from before and thus far easierto overlook unless one is looking for it.

In the Tea Party movements case, or really just about anything people are screaming about now that they weren't under Obama, it would go like this. During Bush's years the pot was warming slowly to the point it was finally at a solid simmer, but since Obama took over the heat was finally put on high and the raging boil began.

Does the simple fact for both of them that their at their hottest when the opposing party is in power not matter? Of course not. Its definitely a large reason for it. Yankee fans cheer hardest when the Sox are in town. Washington fans have a special hatred that comes into their voice when talking about Cowboys fans. People are naturally more apt to have a stronger emotion when their "rival" is present. However the issue I think in both cases does go beyond simply the (R) or (D) next to the Presidents name and into why they feel its worse or better than it previously was. I think the former is much more subconsious while the latter is more the consious portion of it.

Agreed, their criticism and partisanship is legitimate. It would just be an untrue myth if they claimed to be anything but a partisan pro-Republican movement.

I disagree. It would be an untrue myth to claim them to be anything but a partisan pro-conservative movement.

They've supported more libretarian-esque canddiates in primaries than traditional republican types (See Rand Paul for instance). Local parties have stated desire to potentially run their own 3rd party candidate in some elections. Other places they seem to be threatening support for the libertarian candidates. In many primaries they're supporting less stereotypical "2000's" republicans with people in line with their view.

Its a clearly pro-conservative movement that realizes that the primary "conservative" party in the United States is the Republicans and are working within the system as best as possible, but are clearly to me tied far more towards an ideological basis than a party one.

But also, two wrongs don't make a right, and just because someone doesn't mention the (alleged or actual) hypocrisy of the Tea Party movement, doesn't mean his criticism of the anti-war movment's is invalid, or vice versa. Topic of this thread is not the anti-war movement, after all, but the Tea Party.

Indeed, however we do not exist in a bubble and the other views of posters and what they speak about can be seen. So when one is complaining about hypocrisy ones own isn't necessasirly out of bounds. Additionally it is a matter of the severity of which the accusations are being thrown out and the implications they're being made. Someone pointing out the Tea Party is potentially hypocritical is one thing. When one is attempting to invalidate their position, their legitimacy, and the sincerity of the movement based off an action that they themselves are employing and their side employs then the need to examine this fact and give examples is needed. The reason for this is that if the persons supposed conclusion are correct, that hypocrisy and selective outrage invalidates ones legitimacy, then their own complaint about the Tea Parties legitimacy would be illigititimate due to their own hypocrisy and selective outrage.

They are partisan conservative people with certain concerns about the policies of a Democratic President.

I would shift that to a partisan conservative people with concerns about policies of a Democratic President and Congress along with the support for those policies by more moderate or liberal Republicans. However the issue is rather their upset about the politics of a Democratic President because he's a Democratic President or because his policies are primarily liberal? For example are the Tea Party typically protesting the fact Gitmo is still open? That he's maintaining the essential time table and plan that Bush had in Iraq?

I agree completely that its disingenous to call it a completely non-partisan/non-ideological movement that is completely independent in its approach. However I think its equally disingenous to attempt to claim its simply an extention of the GOP and a purely republican-partisan movement. In my mind its clearly a conservative movement made up primarily of republicans, but also with a significant portion of non-republicans containing libertarians, independents, and democrats, who is seeking to have an effect on the political landscape so logically is focusing its support towards candidates within the more conservative of the two major parties.

 

[jambalaya]

Rev, I've given this link about four times now. I do think we should be beyond you asking for it anymore:

MASON CITY — A billboard on the 600 block of South Federal Avenue berates the Obama administration in a manner that has offended some who have seen it.

Google Image Result for http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/globegazette.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/0/7f/d04/07fd047a-5eeb-552a-adc9-b52ec3b40a9a.preview-300.jpg

I live in the next county (south east), but work in Mason City.

I admit this is an aggressive billboard with an exaggerated message but so what? Let's stop pretending all political discourse should be civil when our politicians are so dismissive of the citizens of the country. Ever heard of hyperbole? It is very hard to get anyone's attention saying "Pardon me but may I say that I am not fond of your socialistic tendencies". The billboard doesn't make anybody a "nutter". It was meant to piss people off and get them talking. What the woman in the article says is more annoying to me than the billboard:

“I think it’s a terrible thing to have above Mason City, which is a city of diversity,” she said.

Wild said the billboard makes it seem like Mason City is “a city of hate, as though we’re saying people of certain religions or beliefs are bad. I don’t think that’s what we’re about here.”

Wild said she thinks people of both political parties would agree that Mason City is a city that appreciates diversity.

Oh shut up! People who use the word "diversity" every other sentence are just as clueless as you think the people who put the billboard up are. And some of them indeed may be. But the billboard is hardly anything to get too worked up over.

 

[Demon of Light]

If someone could cite a clear hierarchy it wouldn't be much of an astroturf campaign now would it? The whole idea is that it is supposed to resemble a grassroots effort so that people are actually tricked into supporting it as though it were actually an anti-establishment movement.

As to the point about racism, yes there is intersection of political views and the line can very easily be blurred. The anti-immigration, tough on crime, anti-welfare, and militant foreign policy views of many in the conservative wing of the GOP establishment represented by the Tea Parties match up well with white nationalism. Given these policies generally target minorities in the U.S. or non-white foreigners it is very easy for someone to develop racist views as a result.

 

[Boo Radley]

Again, just because I attend an event organized by an individual, it doesn't mean I endorse every belief that individual holds. It means I agree with the general message or agenda of the event I attend. The billboard you linked is extreme and in my opinion a bit stupid, but its not reprehensible (or has anything to do with "hate" as the idiot quoted in the article said). So yeah, I'd be willing to overlook the organizer's personal extremism if the event was focused on a more generalized or moderated message.

It would mean that most do, yes. If I go to code pink meetings, then I'm a member. If David Duke is an organizer and I go to the meetings he organizes, then I'm putting my name with his. Yes. Once you know this, and go anyway, you're part of it. I see no way around it.

 

[Boo Radley]

If someone could cite a clear hierarchy it wouldn't be much of an astroturf campaign now would it? The whole idea is that it is supposed to resemble a grassroots effort so that people are actually tricked into supporting it as though it were actually an anti-establishment movement.

As to the point about racism, yes there is intersection of political views and the line can very easily be blurred. The anti-immigration, tough on crime, anti-welfare, and militant foreign policy views of many in the conservative wing of the GOP establishment represented by the Tea Parties match up well with white nationalism. Given these policies generally target minorities in the U.S. or non-white foreigners it is very easy for someone to develop racist views as a result.

That just makes them ineffective. But they do have people who organize events, and earlier I linked a centralized list. So, there is a structure of sorts.

 

[mac]

Hmmm, I know it's been out of use in California since the late 90's. I dont know why I thought I remembered it being discontinued on the federal level.

Ok, I was wrong about it's use at the Federal level. That being said, can you show me that it's overwhelmingly Democrats that support and protect it?

Nearly every elected republican has gone on record at least once stating their opposition to Affirmative Action. Giving any preferential treatment to anyone due to their race is racism.

 

[Psychoclown]

It would mean that most do, yes. If I go to code pink meetings, then I'm a member. If David Duke is an organizer and I go to the meetings he organizes, then I'm putting my name with his. Yes. Once you know this, and go anyway, you're part of it. I see no way around it.

Do you ever vote for a candidate who you don't entirely agree with? I'm assuming you have, so does that mean you automatically endorse every stance that politician takes? No. It means you thought he was the best choice in what is usually a flawed field of candidates. And voting has far more importance and consequences than simply attending a rally.

Would I go to a David Duke organized rally even if it centered on ideas I could support? No, for several reasons. He's a vile racist scumbag and I don't want to associate with him in anyway. Nor do I want him associating with anything I support because I know people love to try and use guilt by association, even when its clearly not applicable. But the guy you've been talking about, from what you've linked, isn't a reprehensible, just clearly extreme and perhaps prone to making over the top dramatic statements. I don't care for that, but I can ignore it and still work with him to support common goals and ideals, which is what Tea Party events are about. Now if he hypothetically was a truther, then I'd drop him like a hot potato, because I don't want those people anywhere near me because like racists they taint everything they touch.

 

[Hoplite]

Nearly every elected republican has gone on record at least once stating their opposition to Affirmative Action.

Ok, why havent they done something about it? I mean I realize the Republicans have lost a lot of their power across the country, but they can still vote.

 

[Boo Radley]

Do you ever vote for a candidate who you don't entirely agree with? I'm assuming you have, so does that mean you automatically endorse every stance that politician takes? No. It means you thought he was the best choice in what is usually a flawed field of candidates. And voting has far more importance and consequences than simply attending a rally.

Would I go to a David Duke organized rally even if it centered on ideas I could support? No, for several reasons. He's a vile racist scumbag and I don't want to associate with him in anyway. Nor do I want him associating with anything I support because I know people love to try and use guilt by association, even when its clearly not applicable. But the guy you've been talking about, from what you've linked, isn't a reprehensible, just clearly extreme and perhaps prone to making over the top dramatic statements. I don't care for that, but I can ignore it and still work with him to support common goals and ideals, which is what Tea Party events are about. Now if he hypothetically was a truther, then I'd drop him like a hot potato, because I don't want those people anywhere near me because like racists they taint everything they touch.

Yes, I have voted for a candidate I don't completely agree with, but not a nutter. In fact, as I said earlier, I disagreed with Grassely a lot, voted for him in the past, but now will not vote for him again because he pandered to nutter voices. And when you go to events in which leaders espouse nutter views, there is no way not to be tarred by them. And birthers are no better than truthers. I wouldn't go to rallies held by either. Yet, tea party members do. So, how can they not get some of that stink on them?

 

[Boo Radley]

Ok, why havent they done something about it? I mean I realize the Republicans have lost a lot of their power across the country, but they can still vote.

Mostly because affirmative action doesn't do what many people think it does. The reason why whites have been able to sue and win is because affirmative action doesn't allow racial prefernece outside of a court order.

 

[jambalaya]

Yes, I have voted for a candidate I don't completely agree with, but not a nutter. In fact, as I said earlier, I disagreed with Grassely a lot, voted for him in the past, but now will not vote for him again because he pandered to nutter voices. And when you go to events in which leaders espouse nutter views, there is no way not to be tarred by them. And birthers are no better than truthers. I wouldn't go to rallies held by either. Yet, tea party members do. So, how can they not get some of that stink on them?

If the organizer and the rally is going to make some good points on issues regarding taxation, healthcare, government reform, etc., I really don't care if he is a birther. The opinion of people who will most be like you (anti tea party types) about the "stink" I am getting on me just doesn't matter that much. If the guy is a serial killer or grand dragon of the KKK that is very different.

 

[Boo Radley]

If the organizer and the rally is going to make some good points on issues regarding taxation, healthcare, government reform, etc., I really don't care if he is a birther. The opinion of people who will most be like you (anti tea party types) about the "stink" I am getting on me just doesn't matter that much. If the guy is a serial killer or grand dragon of the KKK that is very different.

You may not. But others will see you and the birther as being much the same. There's no real way around that. And it is not at all different from the KK member, with the ecception that one is less serious than the other. One evil, and the other a clownish, both lacking credibility.

 

[Psychoclown]

You may not. But others will see you and the birther as being much the same. There's no real way around that. And it is not at all different from the KK member, with the ecception that one is less serious than the other. One evil, and the other a clownish, both lacking credibility.

The only people that will see me and the event organizer with a few nutty views as being "much the same" are people with a partisan bent wishing to discredit the Tea Party movement. Rational thinking people will realize that people with different views on certain topics can still come together to support common goals and positions.

 

[Boo Radley]

The only people that will see me and the event organizer with a few nutty views as being "much the same" are people with a partisan bent wishing to discredit the Tea Party movement. Rational thinking people will realize that people with different views on certain topics can still come together to support common goals and positions.

I don't think so. People who are not inclined but curious will also see it that way. Rational people would be curious as to what someone irrational is an accepted organizer.

 

[Psychoclown]

I don't think so. People who are not inclined but curious will also see it that way. Rational people would be curious as to what someone irrational is an accepted organizer.

Because ogranizer is an administrative or logistical role. It's not spokesperson. As long as the organizer in question isn't a reprehensible idiot i.e. neo-nazi, KKK member, or White Sox fan, his personal views are irrelevant.

 

[Boo Radley]

Because ogranizer is an administrative or logistical role. It's not spokesperson. As long as the organizer in question isn't a reprehensible idiot i.e. neo-nazi, KKK member, or White Sox fan, his personal views are irrelevant.

They speak as well.

 

[Psychoclown]

They speak as well.

Speaker also does not equal spokesperson. And as long as has he's speaking about appropriate topics, his personal views on other issues are irrelevant. If he started spouting off ridiculous birther crap, I'd walk away. As the event and the movement are not about idiotic birther theories.

 

[Boo Radley]

Speaker also does not equal spokesperson. And as long as has he's speaking about appropriate topics, his personal views on other issues are irrelevant. If he started spouting off ridiculous birther crap, I'd walk away. As the event and the movement are not about idiotic birther theories.

I'm not sure the difference matters. Those objectively looking in see the speaker, see those in attendence, and cannot help but link the two. And even if you walk away, many have stayed and listened to birther and socialism nutter stuff. What they do in public is what the public sees, and how they will be judged.