Then they (the most prominent Tea-partiers) need to endorse non-"right wing" candidates. otherwise, the link is self-evident.

Just picking someone who isn't the status quo isn't a political platform IMHO....

Sorry, should have used an emoticon to indicate sarcasm. It's a good book, a quick read but very accessible...I gave my copy to some guy on an airplane.

I think the conservative punditry has done an excellent job of giving people that impression. Less so when you reverse the picture.

What's interesting is that some studies show less than 20% of Americans would actually self classify themselves as "liberal" while over 50% or would self classify themselves as "conservative". At the same time, voters probably tend to average out in the middle.

This non-linear distribution on the spectrum is often exploited to present a picture which doesn't map to reality.

-spence

ever think that maybe your definition of "right wing" and "non-right wing" might be different than that of most tea party goers? seems to me they've been consistent supporting the candidates that most closely match up to those principles listed earlier particularly versus the alternatives...just picking someone with a dubious record who you know will be status quo that you think will surely win and get you committee chairmanships shouldn't be a political platform either ...maybe they should occasionally support a "left-wing" candidate just to be fair and placate the media and others

I would say "more so" when you reverse the picture. Its exactly how you explain that most view themselves as conservaitves vs how the vote plays out. I believe a very large percentage of the population would agree with what the tea party stands for. But they will dismiss it without question due to the media spoon feeding them.
If O'Donnell is an example of a right wing endorsement by the tp, how many candidiates were supported by the wacky left and won? you'll never know because the media acts as if the wacky left doesnt exist. they define one end (far right) but NEVER the left!

this is because they are in most cases

It illustrates more that liberal and conservative doesn't map 1:1 to democrat and republican.

A large percentage of Americans would stand for what most parties believe in. A clean environment, good schools, strong defense, a balanced budget...who wouldn't want that?

But being a "grass roots" movement you have to take the good with the bad, it's really about the people and not the platform. From what I've heard about both notable Tea Party winners this week, I can't say "personal responsibility" come to mind.

The difference here is that you don't have progressives upsetting mainstream Dems. You're trying to compare apples and tangerines.

-spence

so, when Obama defeated Hillary, it was called out that he was left wing by the MAINSTREAM media? No way! The only ones screaming about his far left voting record was the conservative media and you know......only crazy rednecks listen to them.

Obama wasn't running as a progressive, and I'm not sure I'd say he's governed as a progressive president. On many fronts, Obama's policy both domestic and foreign hasn't differed that much from Bush.

That's not to imply he's a conservative obviously, but compared to real progressives he's much closer to the middle when you look at the net.

-spence