Boston Tea Party on The Common

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My question made no assumptions. (Quote:"How does being self responsible stop someone else from portraying you poorly?") I did not mention the tea party, Republicans, any person or group in particular. The question asked, for the umpteenth time, IN GENERAL how being self responsible stops someone else from portraying you poorly.

Without context your question makes little sense. The response to Buck was clearly in context of both the Tea Party and Republicans.

As far as the tea party goes, how does not acting in a homo-sexual manner stop others from referring to them as "tea baggers?"

Members of the Tea Party themselves started using this name and that is news. Additionally, you can't blame anyone for enjoying the irony...at least just a bit

How does the VAST majority not acting in a racist manner stop others from accusing them of being racists? How does not blowing up things and not killing people stop others from calling them the next coming of Timothy McVeigh?

There are certainly valid news stories of racial and violent language images being used in Tea Party protests. And it is the responsibility of the media to raise the question if this is pervasive in the movement, or if the movement's leadership is in fact enjoying or inciting this behavior.

Across the board the mainstream reporting on this issue has focused on the individuals and not white washed the entire movement like you have done above. Then again, when FOX News rants about some liberal blog posting, people seem to think that's a big story.

And as for how "the media" has portrayed the tea party--it depends on which "media". Some have portrayed them very favorably. Some, very negatively. Some neutraly.

It sounds like you're assessing the overall coverage as quite neutral overall. Good, the media should be neutral. Glad we can agree again.

tea party and the Republican Party may have a lot in common, but they are not the same. Yes, it consists of many, most likely a majority of Republicans. It also contains many Libertarians and Democrats. It is not an off-shoot of the Republican party. If anything, the Republicans are trying to ride its coatails into the next election. Some have warned the tea partiers not to be co-opted by the GOP. I assume (and this, not my previous QUESTION, is and assumption) that tea partiers will vote for those who campaign in favor of their concerns. If that be Republicans, so be it. If Democrats cannot abide those concerns, then they will, as is always done in politics, marginalize, misrepresent, and in any way possible discredit the tea party movement.

Keep Palin and Bachman on stage and the party will do plenty to discredit themselves.

The sad part is that close to election day voters will return to their party of choice, and for the vast majority of the Tea Party that will be the GOP.

-spence

[scottw]

I guess what is ironic and hypocritical here is that Spence, someone who routinely questions the intellecutal value of the statements of others, is continuing to defend what was a completely inane statement of his own..... and apparently does not recognize this...very entertaining

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Without context your question makes little sense. The response to Buck was clearly in context of both the Tea Party and Republicans.

A question IN GENERAL applies to all contexts. Its intrinsic context is universal. My question can be applied to the "context" of a supposed irony that members of the Tea Party and the Republican Party, supposedly being "self responsible" should not "blame" (your accusatorial locution) the "media" for poorly portraying them. It is beyond irony to the point of being ridiculous to imply, as you did, that being "self responsible" either is supposed to somehow shield one from being poorly portrayed, or if one is, that one should not blame the portrayer but assume that being accused, since you're "self responsible" you are guilty.

There are certainly valid news stories of racial and violent language images being used in Tea Party protests. And it is the responsibility of the media to raise the question if this is pervasive in the movement, or if the movement's leadership is in fact enjoying or inciting this behavior.

So, since the "media" has loudly "raised the question" and has quietly not found racism and violence to be pervasive in the movement, I assume that we can dismiss such charges by various "media" pundits and Democrat politicians.

Across the board the mainstream reporting on this issue has focused on the individuals and not white washed the entire movement like you have done above.

What did I white wash the movement of?

Then again, when FOX News rants about some liberal blog posting, people seem to think that's a big story.

So, if the "media" talks about violent and racial "language" being used by "individuals" at tea party gatherings, that is "valid" news, but if FOX News talks about an individual blog posting, that is "ranting"?

It sounds like you're assessing the overall coverage as quite neutral overall. Good, the media should be neutral. Glad we can agree again.

I don't know if overall it is neutral. I, as probably most tea partiers are, am not concerned one way or the other.

Keep Palin and Bachman on stage and the party will do plenty to discredit themselves.

Discredit in what way?

The sad part is that close to election day voters will return to their party of choice, and for the vast majority of the Tea Party that will be the GOP.

-spence

Why is that, if true, sad?